In the midst of our country’s political divide, it seems that the one thing Americans can agree on is their inability to agree. Even basic facts have become subjective opinions. For instance, it is an undeniable fact that Bill Gates did not orchestrate a scheme to implant microchips in Covid vaccines for the purpose of tracking individuals and controlling their minds. However, research shows that approximately one-fifth of Americans either believe in this microchip conspiracy theory or are uncertain about its validity.
Similarly, it is a fact that Hunter Biden’s laptop was authentic and not part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Yet, a recent poll revealed that 41 percent of Americans, including 59 percent of Democrats, still doubted its authenticity despite confirmation from credible sources like The New York Times.
As someone who examines the reliability of online news and information, I’ve noticed that the erosion of trust in basic facts is largely due to the prevalence of social media platforms as news sources. What people see on these platforms can be highly biased, one-sided, taken out of context, or even fabricated by individuals with undisclosed credentials or hidden agendas. Algorithms further exacerbate the problem by promoting content that engages users rather than informs them, reinforcing their existing beliefs rather than challenging them.
In contrast, the presentation of evidence in a courtroom is characterized by qualities opposite to social media. The court provides a quiet and solemn setting free from the chaotic nature of the online world. Jurors are made aware of witnesses’ credentials and potential biases. Documents and exhibits go through a rigorous authentication process. The admissibility of evidence is carefully examined by a judge, and both sides of the case have an opportunity to present and challenge evidence within strict rules that prohibit hearsay, rumors, or personal opinions.
Having interviewed jurors in the 1980s, I consistently found that they developed a more favorable view of our justice system after experiencing it firsthand. Seeing the system in action, rather than relying on sound-bite spins from the media, led them to believe in its effectiveness and ability to discern the truth. Some even expressed pride in our justice system as something we should all value.
In 1991, I founded Court TV to provide the public with an unfiltered view of the American justice system. By allowing people to witness trials themselves instead of relying on media interpretations, Court TV aimed to align with the founders’ vision of public accessibility to court proceedings. While my argument for constitutional access was initially met with resistance, by 1997, the majority of states had embraced cameras in their courts.
However, the same progress has not been made in federal courts. A significant trial is expected to take place in a Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., within the next year. The trial will determine whether a former president of the United States is guilty of plotting against the democratic process and attempting to overturn an election.
Unfortunately, federal court rules currently prohibit cameras in criminal trials. Nevertheless, regardless of which side one supports in this case, it is crucial to suspend these rules and televise the trial live. The last thing our nation and the world need is for this trial to turn into a divisive spectacle, with each side cheering like sports fans online and on cable news networks. While some of that will inevitably occur, imagine the impact of a calm and methodical presentation of both arguments, adhering to the rules of evidence and decorum of a federal court rather than the algorithms of social media platforms. Such a broadcast could potentially temper the national mood when the verdict is announced and inform people about one of the most important activities conducted by their government.
An additional benefit of setting up a silent pool camera in the courtroom and providing a live feed to all media outlets is that it would give the judge and court administrators a valid reason to restrict the circus-like atmosphere outside the courthouse. The chaos caused by journalists and cameras scrambling for sound bites and offhand comments from lawyers would likely be mitigated. By broadcasting the trial, these media outlets would cater to their audiences’ desire for real-time coverage, resulting in higher viewership than traditional studio discussions.
Consequently, those critical of Mr. Trump logging on to their preferred websites or watching their preferred news channels would have to confront the defense’s argument that there is insufficient evidence proving Mr. Trump’s awareness of his election loss. This argument, which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction, may come as a surprise to many Trump detractors accustomed to biased media coverage. They need to be better informed.
On the other hand, Mr. Trump’s supporters would be exposed to the barrage of detailed evidence outlining multiple plots to overturn the election. These compelling but scarcely covered details in the indictment are crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the case. By witnessing the trial, supporters would be able to engage with evidence oftentimes absent from their regular media consumption.
Suspending the ban on cameras in federal criminal trials will undoubtedly face numerous challenges. It requires the suspension of three rules: the nationwide rule against cameras in federal criminal trials set by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the District of Columbia Circuit’s own rule, and the federal rules of criminal procedure. These forums have historically been reluctant to grant public access to criminal proceedings. However, given the significance of the impending trial, it is imperative that these rules be altered to allow for the live broadcasting of the trial.
By televising the trial, we can provide a more accurate and comprehensive portrayal of the proceedings, unfiltered by media biases and algorithms. This public access has the potential to foster informed discussions and bridge the gap between different perspectives. Ultimately, the goal is to restore faith in our justice system and ensure that the most essential activities of our government are transparent and accessible to all.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
